If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

You mean LinuxThreads library? Well that is because Linux now uses NTPL, which uses Linux specific system calls. So they had to do their own, which is probably not slower than LinuxThreads.
I'm not freebsd user and never was, I'm occasional OpenBSD user.

That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).

So Light Weight Kernel Threads are very similar to Linux kernel threads? I couldn't found any reference.
Virtual kernel feature is similar to User Mode Linux, but it's not performance feature:

Comment

That's right and freebsd used LinuxThreads library in the past and switched later to some crap (probably, because of same political reasons like GCC to llvm switch, so not because of the reason you described).

Probably it was also political reason. (they could port NPTL instead)
And of course Linux is totally unpolitical.

There are two major classes of threads for FreeBSD. The first is the default FreeBSD thread package, referred to henceforth as "uthreads" or "user threads". The other is the Linuxthreads port, which is a port of Linux's kernel threads based on the clone() call (or, in FreeBSD's case, the rfork() call).

TWC considered using an alternate thread library to work around these problems. Specifically, the thread library contained in the LinuxThreads port described at [LinuxThreads]. However, there are binary incompatibilities between the structures defined by FreeBSD's thread library and the LinuxThreads' thread library. Thus, any libraries used by a multithreaded application that use threads internally must be linked against the same thread library as the application. As a result, for our applications to use LinuxThreads, all of the libraries they link against that use threads internally would also have to link against LinuxThreads. As a result of those libraries using LinuxThreads, other applications that use those libraries would also have to link against LinuxThreads. This would require TWC to custom compile several packages including XFree86, Mesa, Python, and a CORBA ORB as well as other applications depending on those packages rather than using the pre-built packages from stock FreeBSD releases. Since the workarounds for FreeBSD's thread library were not too egregious, they were chosen as the lesser of two evils.

This legacy OS was also using M:N threading implementation just to switch to 1:1 like Linux does.

Compilers do not matter very much as far as performance goes. Better aglorithms and code that plays well with cache will always matter more than anything a compiler could do.

Yay, Gentoo developer have spoken. I wonder why freebsd with GCC was way faster than with llvm? I also wonder why the hell you care, so much about compiler and optimization flags? Damn hippo.

Dtrace and ZFS could be called a "tech preview" in FreeBSD 7.x and FreeBSD 8.0-8.2. It is fairly mature in FreeBSD 8.3 and later. At this point, ZFS and Dtrace are no more of a "tech preview" than DragonflyBSD is.

Hammer was developed for years for DragonflyBSD especially and it's far more mature than zfs on freebsd.

"The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."

"The serializing token code is evolving into something quite similar to the "Read-copy-update" feature now available in Linux. Unlike Linux's current RCU implementation, DragonFly's is being implemented such that only processors competing for the same token are affected rather than all processors in the computer."

OK, this is similar.

Comment

I dunno?,
but seriously, and especially after Win8, I'm definitely sure an ArchDOS would be infinitely better, (even for a modern Tablet), than any "ArchWindows" -?! - ewww.
IMHO, ArchBSD is all that foronicks would need, 'ya know, like it's BSD, but it feels like Linux. It's the best of both UNIX worlds, and we'd never know the difference.
...waiting.